I was amused at the comments of the Fine Gael Senators O'Higgins and Quinlan——
Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1975: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To omit all words after "That" and substitute the following:—
"Seanad Éireann declines to give a second reading to the Bill on the grounds that it contains no provision for an all-Ireland Court, is unworkable, inconsistent with Ireland's obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights, and repugnant to the Constitution, in that it contravenes Articles 3 and 38."
—(Senator Lenihan)
The Senator does not know what independence means.
Senator Quinlan obviously does not know what independence means either.
I hope it means standing on one's own two feet, which I have always done.
When the division took place only a few minutes ago the Senator did not stand on his own two feet, but then Senator Quinlan would not vote against Fine Gael. I was highly amused at the comments of the Leader of this House, Senator O'Higgins, last night and this morning. Does Senator O'Higgins feel that the Members of the Fianna Fáil Party should not be allowed to express their total opposition to this most obnoxious legislation? Senator O'Higgins, the man who in the debate on the Offences Against the State Bill in this House demanded the right of free speech and free assembly——
The Senator is not entitled to quote a second time from a previous debate.
Senator O'Higgins is on the record as saying that the ordinary Irish man should be entitled to free speech, and yet he would deny any Member of the Opposition—and he would deny me—the right to say what I feel should be said on a Bill that I am completely and utterly opposed to, on a Bill that I feel should not be passed and on a Bill that I feel should be held up for as long as is humanly possible to do so. If I have these feelings about this Bill, I am entitled, provided I am within the rules of Order of this House, to speak on this Bill for as long as I wish to do so.
I was disappointed that the Minister for Justice, who introduced this Bill, and who when in Opposition is on record as being a strong believer in the right of free speech, should walk out of this House and refuse to listen to the views of any Member of this House. Just a few minutes ago the Leader of the House told us that the Minister for Justice was at a Cabinet Meeting. The Minister for Justice is at this moment drinking coffee in the bar. Anyone who wishes to dispute that should go down to the bar——
It is ten minutes since the Leader of the House said that.
——and there he will see the Minister for Justice. If they go into the Library they will see the Minister for Industry and Commerce reading the newspaper. I would suggest that the Leader of this House misled this House a few minutes ago. I can recall another occasion, a long debate in the other House, a controversial debate following an allegation that a Fianna Fáil Minister misled the House. It would appear that the Minister for Justice by his action last night and by his action this morning has no regard whatsoever for the views of the Opposition on this Bill. By withdrawing from the House and by sitting in a bar drinking coffee at this moment, he is displaying ministerial arrogance unparalleled in the history of this State. If the Fine Gael Party feel that Fianna Fáil are going to accept this measure without mounting a protest that we feel should be lodged, then I want to assure them that this is not going to happen. The Minister for Justice may be in the bar drinking coffee, but at this stage I would point out that we have not got a quorum.
Notice taken that 12 Members were not present: House counted and 12 Members being present,
Fianna Fáil believe that this measure is so obnoxious that we are entitled to oppose it in its entirety, that we are entitled to oppose it section by section and line by line. We do not have to apologise to Senator O'Higgins or to Senator Quinlan or to the Minister for Justice for doing that. The first criticism I would offer to the Bill is its title: "The Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill". I object to the title of the Bill because I believe that many people who could be charged under the Bill would be innocent people. Many people who might be charged under the Bill would, in the eyes of the public, be branded as criminals whether they were guilty or innocent. They would be branded as criminals because the Government for reasons that I cannot understand, have chosen to name the Bill in the manner in which they have. In the Six Counties there will be people charged under the Bill simply because they are Catholics and simply because they aspire to a 32-county Republic. Loyalist supporters and members of security forces can conspire to have innocent people victimised under the Bill. They can use the Government of the Irish Republic to achieve their aim, to create further victimisation of the Catholic population of the Six Counties. Section 2 of the Bill tells us that, where a person in the Six Counties does an act that, if done in the State, would constitute an offence specified in the schedule, he shall be guilty of an offence and that he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to the penalty to which he would have been liable if he had done the act in the State. If a public meeting took place in O'Connell Street tonight and if some of the people attending that public meeting attacked members of the Garda Síochána they would quite naturally be committing an offence, and it would be right and proper that they should be prosecuted for that offence, particularly if it caused grievous bodily harm to any member of the Garda Síochána or indeed to anyone else. If members of the audience at a public meeting in the Six Counties were involved in a dispute with the police force, it does not follow that it would be right and proper that they should be prosecuted. It would depend on the full circumstances of the case. If, for example, the people of Derry decide in a few months' time to hold a public meeting in the Diamond, as they did on the 4th October, 1968, and if the police force do what they persuaded Mr. William Craig to do then—to ban public meetings—and if the Derry people decided despite that ban to exercise their democratic right and hold that meeting, what will be their position when this Bill becomes law? On 4th October, 1968, the police—the body this Government are so anxious to co-operate with—baton charged the Derry people and tried to stop them from holding that public meeting.
Imagine what could happen if a public meeting were held in Derry a few months following the passage of this Bill. The Derry people would rise again and would counteract the police. Many innocent citizens would be injured as a result. So also would a number of police. According to the Schedule to this Bill, they would be wounded with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. That policeman would be wounded, possibly by a Derryman, because that policeman would be helping to deny that Derryman his democratic right to hold a public meeting. Once the riot is over that Derryman could decide, as happened in 1968, to get out of the city and cross the Border. In 1968 that Derryman was welcomed with open arms. In two or three months' time, if we had a repetition, would this Government welcome him with open arms? If he was arrested following these incidents and escaped across the Border would he be welcomed? No, this Government would not welcome him. They would have been arrested and charged with escaping from custody after causing grievous bodily harm to a policeman. Such a policeman, if he bore any resemblance to the policemen in 1968, would deserve whatever grievous bodily harm was inflicted on him.
In accordance with the terms of this Bill and following the preliminary hearing, if the Attorney General is satisfied that this Derryman escaped following his arrest, he would be sent for trial to the Special Criminal Court and liable to a sentence of seven years in prison. The Attorney General would only take into consideration the fact that he had escaped from custody. He could not take into consideration the serious provocation which provoked the act. The fact that this Derryman was being denied his democratic right to participate in a public meeting by the RUC and possibly the British Government could not be considered by the Attorney General. To those people who claim that this Bill is only designed to deal with murderers, I say that is complete nonsense. By presenting this legislation the Government are asking the Irish people to co-operate with the most obnoxious police force in the world, to stamp out the democratic process in the North of Ireland.
What would be the reaction of the Irish people if, having escaped from the police in Derry, this Derryman were arrested when he crossed the Border, possibly, in Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan or Louth? At the preliminary hearing in the District Court thousands of people would gather to register their disapproval of this Government aiding and abetting the RUC. As a result of that protest people who under normal circumstances would have nothing to do with illegal organisations would overnight find themselves in complete sympathy with them.
This Bill instead of preventing disorder, would be encouraging it. In subsection (2) of section 2, we are told:
Where a person——
(a) in the State or in Northern Ireland, aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence under subsection (1) of section 3, or
(b) in Northern Ireland, aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of an offence specified in the Schedule,
he shall be guilty of, and may be indicted, tried and punished for, the relevant principal offence, and the following provisions of this Act relating to the commission of any such principal offence shall apply accordingly.
This could mean that if an innocent person in the Six Counties, in order perhaps to save a life or prevent dying, goes to the assistance of someone whom he feels is being victimised or is being baton-charged by the RUC if that innocent person causes grievous bodily harm to an RUC officer, and then escapes across the Border, that person too is liable to be prosecuted by the National Coalition Government.
Looking back on the events in Derry in October, 1968, I thank God that the Coalition Government were not then in office and that the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill was not in operation. If it had been, hundreds of Derry people who resisted the torture of the RUC would have found, when they crossed the Border for help, that the Coalition Government had no sympathy for them but were charging them with daring to escape from the RUC. What the National Coalition Government are telling them, and what we can take from this Bill, is that the people who support this Bill are saying: "You should have allowed yourselves to be mowed down by the RUC. You should have allowed yourselves to be baton-charged and when arrested you should have allowed yourselves to be brought to prison and beaten up in the Six-County prisons, because it is against the law of the Republic of Ireland to escape from the RUC in Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh or Belfast." That is what this Bill is telling us.
It is also telling the people of the Six Counties that, no matter what the provocation, if they resist attacks by the RUC and cause grievous bodily harm and are arrested and escape, from the moment the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill becomes law it is an offence to escape from the RUC. No matter what complexion spokesmen for the Coalition Government give to the Bill, no matter how often Fianna Fáil are accused—as we were last night by Senator McCartin—of voting against murderers, we continue to repeat that we are not condoning murder or arson. But we are also not condoning provisions in this legislation that give this Government the right to arrest people in certain circumstances.
It is outrageous that provisions of this kind should be introduced in the Parliament of the Irish Republic. I am dumbfounded that members of the Labour Party, who have been on record down the years as opposing repressive legislation and who have been in the forefront in the demands for the rights of free speech and free assembly, would support a measure which could victimise people of the Six Counties for exercising what the Labour Party claim to be a normal right.
Section 2 (4) reads:
Where a person has committed an offence under subsection (1) or section 3 or attempted to commit any such offence, any other person who, in the State or in Northern Ireland, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or attempt or of some other such offence or attempt, does without reasonable excuse, any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution in the State or in Northern Ireland shall be guilty of an offence.
I recall the events of the Bogside in August, 1969, when a group of Derry people, because of armed attacks by B Specials and the RUC on their homes, commandeered a bus and drove to my own native town of Letter-kenny. If this Government had been in office and this legislation were on the statute books, many of my fellow townspeople would have found themselves guilty of an offence. This could happen again. The last has not been heard of Mr. William Craig. If this legislation had been on the statute book when that bus arrived in Letter-kenny, in accordance with the Schedule to this Bill the people on it would have been charged with unlawful seizure of a vehicle. If the Garda Síochána had had the unpleasant duty on that August day of arresting the occupants of that bus, I have no doubt that the people of Donegal at that stage—their emotions high, their feelings strong— would have assisted the occupants to escape arrest. Those Donegal people who sympathised with the Derry people could have been prosecuted under section 2, subsection (4) to (8) of the Criminal Law (Jursidiction) Bill.
What the National Coalition Government are saying is that, once this Bill becomes law, if the people of Derry ever find it necessary to escape from RUC who are firing shots into their homes or from the B Specials trying to assassinate them, and commandeer a bus to cross the Border, they are not to be assisted in any way. They are not to be fed or given money; they are to be given no aid at all. If a Donegal man assists them he will be prosecuted under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill.
Section 3 (1) (a) reads:
A person who, in Northern Ireland, is charged with or convicted of—
(i) an offence under the law of Northern Ireland consisting of acts (whether done in the State or in Northern Ireland) that also constitute an offence specified in the Schedule or an offence under section 2, or
(ii) an offence under the law of Northern Ireland corresponding to this section, and who escapes from any lawful custody in which he is held in Northern Ireland shall be guilty of an offence.
One has only to read the Schedule to realise that many people could be guilty of an offence under the Schedule in certain circumstances when under normal circumstances they would not be so guilty.
We are told in the Schedule that murder, manslaughter, arson, kidnapping and false imprisonment, constitute common law offences. Fianna Fáil have made their position very clear as far as these offences are concerned— that no one should be allowed to sully the noble cause of republicanism to justify offences of this kind. We should have legislation to deal with offences of this kind. But the law in the Six Counties is such, and trumped-up charges are so common, that I believe that we must be very careful with whatever legislation we introduce.
I can recall the murder of a young Donegal couple and the witnesses that were brought down from Derry on behalf of the accused who swore that that accused was in a certain spot in Derry on that night. It was obvious to most people that those witnesses in the court here in Dublin perjured themselves sufficiently to bring about the situation in which the accused was found not guilty. My fear would be that in certain circumstances, as a result of trumped-up charges, innocent people could be found guilty of murder who would not be in a position to prove otherwise. If, for example, John Doherty living in Derry's Bogside is accused of murdering someone in the city but he knows he is innocent, and his family knows he is innocent. However, he also knows that in the Six Counties there will be no justice for him. So, following his arrest, he escapes from custody and crosses the Border. He will be arrested in the Republic under section 3 (1) and charged with murder.
Let me say that, if he is guilty of murder, no matter who he murdered, I agree that he should be tried and punished. But if he is not guilty of murder, if he faces a trumped-up charge and if the judges are sent from here to the city of Derry and the commission sits to take evidence and if four or five or six people swear that they saw John Doherty on that night entering a certain place, that they saw him pulling out a revolver and shooting someone and if that evidence is concocted, have we any way of knowing? John Doherty could quite easily have no alibi. He could quite easily not be in a position to prove in court that he did not commit this foul deed but some of his Loyalist "friends" could have deliberately set him up and it could well be that, as a result of this legislation, introduced by the National Coalition, John Doherty could receive a punishment that he most certainly did not deserve.
That is why I agree with those who say that this Bill is unworkable. I cannot see sufficient supporters of this Government agreeing that this legislation should be put into practice. If we only once have a case of a John Doherty, if one incident occurs, if the Irish people are convinced that an innocent persons has been found guilty on a trumped-up charge, then the supporters of this Government, who so strongly support this measure will bury their heads in shame.
I should like to quote very briefly a report in yesterday's Evening Herald which tells us on the front page that a new terror group in the Six Counties, the Protestant Action Group, claimed responsibility for killing seven Catholics in the past fortnight.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator informed the House about that yesterday.
I could not have informed the House yesterday.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator quoted that group yesterday.
I did not see this newspaper until this morning. There are so many statements from so many groups that I may have mentioned some other group.
The point I wish to make is this. There are such action groups in the Six Counties today murdering Catholicts and boasting about it. They may decide in three months from now that it will not be necessary to murder Catholics any more as the National Coalition Government have provided them with legislation to punish the Catholics of the Six Counties and send them to a jail in the Republic. They would look upon this ironically and would consider it much more satisfying, instead of pulling out a gun and shooting a Catholic, to set that Catholic up on a trumped-up charge, any charge under this Schedule, and produce for the Government sufficient evidence to prove that that Catholic was guilty of murder, manslaughter or the common law offences of our State. I submit that, if that innocent Catholic is not able to prove his innocence and if five or six witnesses enter the witness box and swear that they saw this Catholic committing this offence, the court must find him guilty.
If five or six people came down from Derry and swore that a certain Protestant did not commit what we all know he did commit, would perjury worry a member of the Protestant Action Force? Would perjury worry a member of a force that openly boasts of murdering seven Catholics in the past fortnight? Would they blush if they had to go into a court in the Six Counties with all the judges from Dublin sitting there listening to them swearing that they saw John Doherty pulling the trigger? Would that in any way prick their consciences—people who openly boast the murder of seven Catholics in a fortnight?
I have no doubt that members of action forces such as the Protestant Action Force will be very interested in this legislation when it is passed. They will sit back and say: "Boys, we were going to murder so and so, but for a laugh, would it not be funny if we got a crowd of simpletons in the Dublin Government to send them to prison for 20 or 30 years instead?" On a trial such as I have described there would be no option on the evidence presented but for the judge to find that innocent person guilty. A crowd of simpletons in the National Coalition Government would have aided and abetted organisations such as the Protestant Action Force to send an innocent person to prison simply because he was a Catholic and because his main desire in life was to see this country united.
To those who believe this Bill is urgent, I say: "Fiddlesticks." I was amused this morning listening to Senator O'Higgins telling us how urgent this legislation is. It is possible Her Majesty's Government in Westminster and the Loyalists in the Six Counties would consider this legislation urgent. We, in the Fianna Fáil Party, do not believe that it is urgent. We feel we are within our rights to oppose it strongly.
Section 4 states:
The Explosive Substances Act, 1883, is hereby amended by the substitution for sections 2 and 3 of the following sections:
2.—A person who in the State or (being an Irish citizen) outside the State unlawfully and maliciously causes by an explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life, or cause serious injury to property, shall, whether any injury to person or property is actually caused or not, be guilty of an offence and, on conviction on indictment, shall be liable to imprisonment for life.
If I was absolutely satisfied that the individual concerned was guilty of such an offence, I would agree that he should be dealt with with the full rigour of the law, irrespective of who he is or what he is. That is the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party. We do not condone actions of this kind. But would members of Loyalist paramilitary groups, protestant action forces, not believe that it would be ironical for them to get the Dublin Government to send someone to prison for life instead of having to waste a bullet? Would they not have a right laugh following a court case and a life sentence for someone they wanted to dispose of, if they caused an explosion and provided enough witnesses and sufficient evidence—left part of an explosive in someone's car, for example—and trumped-up the charge in such a way that in the eyes of the court the evidence pointed directly at some individual, an individual that members of these organisations would, under normal circumstances, possibly have shot or would think of shooting but whom they now chose, thanks to the National Coalition Government, to send to a jail in the Republic of Ireland instead?
Is it not within the bounds of possibility that unscrupulous people of this kind would have no hesitation in getting involved in such a trumped-up charge, having a good laugh at the simpletons of the National Coalition Government who assisted so well in providing the legislation to enable them to do so?
Subsection (2) of section 3 makes it an offence for a person to escape from lawful custody while in the Six Counties and, as a result of an order, enables the Special Criminal Court in this city to issue a letter of request for the taking of evidence on commission in the Six Counties. There is also provision that on the request of the accused an order may be made for him to be sent to the Six Counties for the purpose of being present at the taking of the evidence.
If this legislation is ever put into practice we shall have some very serious and interesting situations. The judges in the Irish Republic will cross the Border to sit with a justice to take evidence from people such as the members of the Protestant Action Force in such circumstances that while the judges that we send across may be convinced in their own minds that the witnesses are perjuring themselves, unless evidence is given to the contrary they will have no option but to accept the evidence before them.
In section 8 we learn that the Firearms Act, 1964, is amended by the insertion of another section:
27A. (1) A person who has a firearm or ammunition in his possession or under his control in such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable inference that he has not got it in his possession or under his control for a lawful purpose shall, unless he has it in his possession or under his control for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
By including this section I submit that this Government are doing what the Stormont Government did for 50 years and what the British Government did for 700 years, and that is to legislate against an identifiable section of our community. This section in no way interferes, in no way affects, the Loyalist section of the Six-Counties community because each and every Loyalist in the Six Counties, not alone has a gun but has a licensed gun, a gun under licence from Her Majesty's Government, the Government with which this Government are so anxious to collaborate in wiping out unlicensed guns in the Six Counties.
In the Six Counties there are 100,000 licensed gun holders, members of so-called gun clubs, who use them allegedly to shoot wildfowl but who in recent years have extended the scope of their activities, with the obvious blessing of Her Majesty's Government. Had the National Coalition Government insisted before agreeing with Mr. Wilson that the clause should be inserted, that the 100,000 licensed guns in the Six Counties should be taken from these people, then my objection to this section would not be so strong.
It was the duty of the Government to insist that the gun clubs in the Six Counties should be abolished and that no licensed guns should be held by anyone. It was the duty and the responsibility of the Government to do that. I can only conclude that the members of the Government, in their efforts to placate the loyalist paramilitary groups in the Six Counties, were not prepared to insist in the abolition of gun clubs and the withdrawal of licensed guns. Instead, they were quite happy to facilitate the British with this section. This is a very serious section and if the National Coalition Government were really and genuinely interested in stopping violence in the Six Counties they should have used their influence, if they have any influence with the British, to ensure that what I am advocating was done. In section 10 we are told:
(1) A person who unlawfully, by force or threat thereof, or by any other form of intimidation, seizes or exercises control of or otherwise interferes with the control of, or compels or induces some other person to use for an unlawful purpose, any vehicle (whether mechanically propelled or not) or any ship or hovercraft shall be guilty of any offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fifteen years.
As far as I can see, there is no provision in the legislation to take into account the circumstances in which this section could be contravened. The bus driver who arrived in Letterkenny in August, 1969, with 40 Bog-siders screaming for help, food and money, and the hundreds of people who gathered in the market square in Letterkenny and gave them money, will breathe a sigh of relief when they read this section that the National Coalition Government were not in office in 1969 and that this legislation was not on the statute book. That bus driver who escaped from the B Specials in Derry, who escaped from the RUC—who had entered the Bogside with their official weapons and who shot through the windows and the doors of the people's homes—and who gathered a crowd and commandeered a bus the property of the Derry and Lough Swilly Railway Company could face a sentence of up to 15 years' imprisonment in a jail in the Republic of Ireland. The National Coalition Government are telling that bus driver and the people of Derry in this legislation that they believe they should not have left Derry, that they should have stayed in Derry and allowed the B Specials and the RUC to murder them in their homes. They should not cross the Border to seek help, they should not do the only thing they could do in those circumstances, which was to seize a bus and cross the Border for help.
What will happen if this situation should ever arise again? There are certain possibilities as far as the Six Counties are concerned. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the British Government eventually will say: "We are tired talking and arguing about the Six Counties: there is your election, elect your MPs, you have Stormont back again, appoint your own Prime Minister and your own Cabinet and carry on from there." In such circumstances Mr. William Craig might eventually become Prime Minister of the Six Counties.
The Chair finds it hard to relate what the Senator is saying now to the Bill before us.
What I intend to say is that in the eventuality of William Craig, who on 4th October, 1968——
The Senator should not expand the item which the Chair found it difficult to relate to the Bill. If the Senator wishes to continue on that line he should, as briefly as possible, indicate its relevance to the Bill or else pass on.
In the eventuality of Mr. Craig becoming Prime Minister——
The Senator has made that remark three times already. He will make that relevant or else desist from making the point.
——and banning public parades in the Six Counties as he did in Derry in 1968, the Derry people may find it necessary to resist the RUC. It is possible that in the event of a parade being banned the Derry people will be subjected to baton charges by the RUC and charged with causing grievous bodily harm to the RUC in attempting to defend themselves. They may consider it necessary to seize a bus, cross the Border into County Donegal as they did in August, 1969 for help. The situation now will be different because those people can be arrested under the terms of section 10 of the Bill. These people will be told that they should not escape from the RUC in Derry, that they should not cause grievous bodily harm to the RUC——
The Chair has heard the Senator deal with this argument on several occasions. The fact that it is placed in a slightly different context when repeated does not mean that it is not repetitious and that it is not repetition within the meaning of the Standing Orders. Accordingly, the Chair feels it necessary to indicate to the Senator and to the Seanad that such repetition, with a variation in the context, cannot be allowed.
I will move on to section 11 (1) which states:
For the purposes of the trial by a special court established under Article 38.3.1º of the Constitution of an offence under section 2 or 3 or of any appeal in relation to the trial, the court of trial shall, at the request of the prosecution or the accused unless it is satisfied that it is not in the interests of justice to do so, and may of its own motion, and any appellate court may at such a request or of its own motion, by order provide for the issue of a letter of request to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland for the taking, in the presence of the members of the court making the order, of evidence in Northern Ireland by a judge of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland from a witness specified in the order.
What would happen if the High Court judge in the Six Counties was Judge McDermott who admitted that Patrick McElhone was innocent, that he had behaved in a perfectly reasonable manner? Not alone is it necessary for us to have confidence in our own judiciary but should we also not have it for the judiciary in the Six Counties? Before this Bill could operate properly the people of the Republic, and a fair section of the people in the Six Counties, would not alone have to have confidence in the RUC and other security institutions but they would also have to have confidence in the Six-county judiciary. There is no reason at the moment why the people should have that confidence. The situation would be absurd if a man like the judge I have mentioned were to be the one appointed by the Lord Chief Justice in the Six Counties to assist in the taking of evidence in the Six Counties. Subsection (4)——
The fact that the Senator mentions a subsection (4) of the section is a clear indication that he is discussing this Bill in a manner which is not appropriate. Details of a Bill should be left for discussion in Committee. They are not appropriate to the Second Stage when questions of principle only should be discussed.
In this area of the Bill, when a question of delivering the accused by the Garda Síochána to a spot on the Border arises, we should compare the Minister for Justice, Deputy Cooney, to Pontius Pilate, with the choice of delivering two prisoners, Christ or Barabbas. It would be a sad reflection on this Government if it is ever established that the Garda Síochána handed over someone at a lonely spot along the 300-mile Border to the RUC or the British Army. It would be a sad reflection on this Government if it is established that that individual was innocent. I trust that the day will come when the Irish people will let the members of the National Coalition Government know what they think of collaboration of that kind. This Government are providing procedure in this Bill by which the courts in the Six Counties may seek the assistance of the High Court to obtain evidence for use in criminal proceedings, corresponding to the reciprocal assistance given.
We are told the procedure includes rights and safeguards provided for the accused and that it is to be similar in the two jurisdictions. We have been given that assurance in this legislation. I should like to ask the Minister for Justice or any person supporting this measure in what way can they guartee that the rights and safeguards of the accused would be similar in the Six Counties to here. In what way can the Minister for Justice guarantee that a prisoner in the Six Counties will be treated in the same manner, treated with the same sense of fair play, as prevails in the Republic? The Minister for Justice must depend on who is to give that guarantee, he must depend on the British Government. He need only reread the history of this country to realise that the word of the British Government is not worth the paper it is written on. I do not think that any Dublin Government should accept the word of the British in this matter. To suggest that the rights and safeguards provided for the accused are similar or will be similar on the two sides of the Border is completely absurd.
How have the members of the National Coalition Government and their supporters all that much faith in the British Government? What has happened in the last two years to give them this faith? Their forefathers had faith in the British Government. Unfortunately, the Rules of Order of this House will not allow me to expand on that today. I think I would at least be enitled to remind them that the British Government broke that faith then and they will break this faith too.
They even broke the Free Trade Agreement of 1965 before it was 12 months in operation.
Senator Fitzgerald admits they broke the Free Trade Agreement, and now Senator Fitzgerald believes that they will not break faith with the National Coalition Government on this important measure.
We were discussing a Bill not a treaty.
I am sorry but I could not resist the interruption of Senator Fitzgerald because he has given me another chance to prove that you cannot trust the British one quarter of an inch. I feel that deep down in his heart Senator Fitzgerald knows that what I am saying is true.
The Senator has said it often enough.
Senator Fitzgerald knows that the British Government could not be trusted.